At 11:32 AM +0100 2/22/02, Iver Larsen wrote:
>>
>> QLIYIS KAI STENOCWRIA *EPI* PASAN YUCHN ANQRWPOU
>> TOU KATERGAZOMENOU TO KAKON
>> IOUDAIOU TE PRWTON KAI hELLHNOS
>>
>> What does PRWTON modify here?
>>
>> Is IOUDAIOU adjectival or adverbial?
>>
>> Mark Wilson
>
>Yes, this is fairly parallel to 1:16. I have added the preposition EPI which
>accidentally was omitted by the scribe, Mark Wilson (no problem, this
>happens all the time).
>
>Greek has a capacity to express events through noun phrases and prepositions
>that English does not have.
>Let me use some letters:
>X=QLIYIS
>Y=STENOCWRIA
>Z1=PASAN YUCHN ANQRWPOU
>Z2=TOU KATERGAZOMENOU TO KAKON
>Z3=IOUDAIOU TE PRWTON KAI hELLHNOS
>
>Z2 is a genitive phrase modifying ANQRWPOU, corresponding to a relative
>clause in English (who are doing evil). Grammatically, I would call it an
>apposition in Greek.
>Z3 is a further genitive phrase in apposition to ANQRWPOU and further
>modifying Z1+Z2. It would not correspond to a relative clause in English
>since there is no definite article or relative pronoun, but an explanation
>(that is, first to the Jew and (then) to the Gentile).
>
>So the whole verbless clause "X and Y upon Z1,Z2,Z3" means that Z1, further
>described by Z2 and Z3, will experience X and Y.
>
>With this analysis I would again say that PRWTON modifies the implied event:
>It will first happen to the Jew and then to the Gentile. That also means
>that PRWTON as far as I can see does not modify any word in the sentence,
>but it modifies the verb which is not explicit, but clearly understood
>through the context, the semantic content of X and Y, and the preposition
>EPI.

One last comment and then I'm going to leave this matter of "what does
PRWTON qualify/modify/limit?" alone. There are three instances of our
combination, IOUDAI/... PRWTON TE KAI hELLHN/...

and the third is the immediately following Rom 2:10: DOXA DE KAI TIMH KAI
EIHRHNH PANTI TWi ERGAZOMENWi TO AGAQON, IOUDAIWi TE PRWTON KAI hELLHNI ...

It's not as if any of us didn't understand what any one of these sentences
is saying by means of the phrase, IOUDAI/... PRWTON TE KAI hELLHN/...; our
difference is over how we understand PRWTON (which I think we agree is
adverbial) to function in relationship to any or all of the other elements
in its clause in any one of these constructions. Iver argues that PRWTON
does not modify/qualify/limit "any word in the sentence" but rather "the
verb which is not explicit but clearly understood through the context ..."
I gather that Steven would say the same with his conception of an ellipsis
involved here. I still don't think any "deep structure" is required to
understand how PRWTON is working here; rather I think that in each instance
PRWTON functions to limit/qualify/modify the word it immediately follows; I
certainly don't see how the form IOUDAIWi or IOUDAIOU can depend upon
PRWTON. I can see (through a glass darkly) how that "deep structure" or
ellipsis is being conceived, but that still seems to me an excessively
intricate explanation of a rather simple contextual relationship between a
universal assertion PANTI/PASAN YUCHN ANQRWPOU/PANTI and a distributive
IOUDAI/... TE KAI hELLHN/... And those who prefer that explanation are
welcome to it.
--